MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989309669 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2014.2360529

Establishing a Relation between Preisach and Jiles–Atherton Models

2015· article· en· W1989309669 on OpenAlexaff
Sajid Hussain, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)HysteresisMagnetic hysteresisFinite element methodStress (linguistics)Preisach model of hysteresisRange (aeronautics)FerromagnetismLinear interpolationMaterials scienceComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematicsThermodynamicsPhysicsCondensed matter physicsMagnetizationMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hysteresis models can incorporate the effects of operating conditions (frequency, stress, and temperature) on iron losses incurred in ferromagnetic materials. Among such models, the Jiles-Atherton (JA) and Preisach models are the most popular and various modifications of these have been proposed in the literature to model the effect of frequency, stress, and temperature on iron losses. Both of these representations produce accurate results compared with the curve fitting models and can be directly implemented in finite element simulations. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to incorporate all these effects into a single iron loss model that is computationally efficient and can predict iron losses with reasonable accuracy for a given range of these parameters. In this paper, an effort has been made to establish a relationship between JA and Preisach models and an interpolation-based approach is presented to predict iron losses that utilizes the Preisach model on top of the JA model and incorporates all of the above factors. It is shown that iron loss can be predicted accurately for any value of frequency, stress, and temperature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207